raw_api_call

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool makes API calls but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response formats. For a raw API tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a raw API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits like authentication. For a tool that can perform various operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters (endpoint, method, body) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as endpoint format examples or method constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a raw API call to any OpenProject endpoint.' It specifies the verb ('Make a raw API call') and resource ('any OpenProject endpoint'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_work_package' or 'update_work_package' which are specific API calls. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., 'create_work_package', 'get_work_package'). It implies usage for any API endpoint but doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, it offers minimal usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.